ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Comparison of modified versus conventional laparoscopic transcystic biliary drainage in the management of cholecystocholedocholithiasis: safety and efficacy.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic transcystic biliary drainage (LTCBD) combined with cholecystectomy have been explored as a treatment for cholecystocholedocholithiasis, but early dislodgment of the drainage tube remains a major challenge. We developed a modified laparoscopic transcystic biliary drainage approach and aims to evaluate its safety and efficacy by comparing it with the conventional approach.
methodsFrom April 2020 to December 2023, a total of 81 patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis underwent LTCBD. In the early phase of the study, the conventional LTCBD (c-LTCBD) approach was performed, while in the later phase, a modified LTCBD (m-LTCBD) approach was implemented. The safety and efficacy of these two techniques were compared.
resultsAmong the 81 patients, c-LTCBD was performed in 14 patients, while the remaining 67 patients underwent m-LTCBD. There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, sex, presence of jaundice, cystic duct diameter, common bile duct diameter, number of stones, or the requirement for emergency treatment. Further analysis revealed that no significant differences were observed between the two techniques on surgical outcomes including surgical duration, complication rates, extended functions, C-tube removal time, or mean maximum drainage volume. Importantly, the hospital stay duration was shorter in the m-LTCBD compared to the c-LTCBD group (t = 3.206, P = 0.002). Additionally, 9 cases of C-tube related adverse events (C-tube dislodgement /displacement) were observed, with the incidence significantly lower in the m-LTCBD group (5/67 vs. 4/14, respectively; χ
conclusionm-LTCBD is a safe and effective technique for external drainage and therapeutic access, offering a viable alternative for managing cholecystocholedocholithiasis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42720905What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.